I applaud Obama for showing that America still can be any body's friend as long as those that wants to be friend are willing.

And yes I agree that is many Israelis that despised what their own government is doing in their behave, creating more enemies to continue the fight.

Is time that America stop been the bully and start attracting friends.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
I notice how everyone has avoided that little issue so far, and I would really like to hear more opinions on it...

Ok. Here's my opinion on that. Just as many regular Americans doubt Arab nations and their leaders, many Arabs doubt us and our leader. They pretty much know what Bush was about. And WE already pretty much know what Obama is about. We've been listening to him for 2 years now. This interview lets the Arab world (and the entire world) know that there's a new guy in town. Someone who is willing to be diplomatic and talk to and respect Arab nations and separate them from "terrorists", unlike Bush was willing to do. It's a way of calming racial and national tensions around the world.

It also lets the people of the US know that he really meant what he said during and since the campaign. He is willing to communicate to other nations, even those who some see as our "enemies" in order to take care of us.

I will bet my bottom dollar the top media dogs right now are in high level executive meetings beating their heads against walls on how to handle a President who is clearly is not going with the program.

I totally agree with you. He's not going along with the program. The program sucks and is ineffective and bears violent results. He's not going along with the program, he's WRITING the program. And he's not too concerned with "how it looks" to critics. He's doing what he thinks is best for our country and the world, and that is to calm the tensions around the world by showing us and them that he is a logical, respectful guy who really wants peace.

Basically, he's letting the world know that the USA is NOT the enemy of the Arab world.


[edit on 27-1-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Don't even try to turn this into an anti-muslim thing, if that's where your mind is going. It's NOT.

You originally said "Arab", not "Muslim". I'm certain you're aware of the difference. It had appeared to me since you called the Arabs "THEM" that it was you who was attempting to be anti-something.

It's a FOREIGN news network. One that most Americans don't keep track of and wouldn't know what is said on it. Sometimes what is said on a European network will make it's way into the news here in the USA. But for the most part what is said on Al-Arabiya doesnt'.

Is there an inherent problem with a non-US news network we're unaware of? And in this case, we did indeed become aware of the interview.

it LOOKS LIKE he was playing to them knowing that most Americans wouldn't be hearing about it.

Can you explain how? I'm honestly not seeing what you describe.

Originally posted by mister.old.school
" that it was you who was attempting to be anti-something.

The something that I'm 'anti' is the POTUS making interviews on a foreign network that Americans are, for the most part, not tuned into and having him make the interview 'hat in hand'.

Do not turn this into an anti-muslm thing.
Do not turn this into an anti-arab thing.
It's not. (and yes I know the difference)

in this case, we did indeed become aware of the interview.

Because Fox news - which leans to the right - exposed it.

I'm honestly not seeing what you describe.

He played to the foreign network audience. He told them what he thinks they wanted to hear. But it was a network that most Americans don't hear about. So he doesn't have to worry about most Americans finding out that he diss'd America.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Because Fox news - which leans to the right - exposed it.

Do you honestly believe that an interview with the newly sitting president would not have otherwise been discovered by nearly anyone?

He told them what he thinks they wanted to hear.

Forgive me, as I'm still unclear as to your point. What is it, exactly, that you believe he said to "them" that he would not say to "us".


[edit on 27-1-2009 by mister.old.school]

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
He's doing what he thinks is best for our country and the world, and that is to calm the tensions around the world by showing us and them that he is a logical, respectful guy who really wants peace.

Well he better start calming tensions here first if he wants the best for our country. My God. We are in serious trouble. Maybe it IS just more of the same.

Peace by firing more missiles into Pakistan his first day on the job just about? Peace by staying in and DOUBLING our forces in Afghanistan? Yeah phased withdraw from Iraq right into Afghanistan, great. Peace.

You want peace how about getting our friggin forces completely out of the middle east? There MIGHT actually be a chance for peace after that. Let the middle east deal with the middle east. Enough of this nonsense.

/diatribe

but thanks for your opinion.

F it. You get to guess what I said, because sooner or later someone else will.

[edit on 1/27/2009 by Matyas]

Originally posted by mister.old.school

PS: There's no need to be off-handed insulting, as I've done no such thing to you.

Of course there is reason to be "off-handed insulting"! It's what folks do here on ATS when their argument has no legs to stand on and are unable to respond to legitimate questions.

Oh and Obama IS an apologist. Like today when discussing Republicans concerns about his stimulas plan ...""There are some legitimate philosophical differences with parts of my plan that the Republicans have and I respect that,"

Geez...."Legitmate...Concerns"? and "I respect that"?

All of his bipartisanship and respectful dialouge!! ..and actual listening!!

It's disgusting!!

Originally posted by maybereal11
It's what folks do here on ATS when their argument has no legs to stand on and are unable to respond to legitimate questions.

Wrong. It's what folks do here when the same question is asked three times ... and answered three times ...

I'm not going to go through page after page of repeating the same answer over and over. That's ignorant and a waste of bandwidth.

mister.old.school, I've been trying to figure out the answer to your questions, too, and from reading the OP's posts, I have come to the conclusion that the answers are as follows:

Originally posted by mister.old.school
Do you honestly believe that an interview with the newly sitting president would not have otherwise been discovered by nearly anyone?

Yes. The interview would have remained a secret if FOX News hadn't exposed it and broken the story to the American public.

What is it, exactly, that you believe he said to "them" that he would not say to "us".

According to the OP's posts:

1. He was negative about the USA.
2. He apologized for things that there is no need to apologize for.
3. He insinuated that only a few Israelis want peace.
4. He insinuated that the Palestinians don't need to make sacrifices.
5. He blamed America for the world's woes.
6. He used "blame-America-first" langusge.
7. He made the impression that all the Arabs have to do is show up and accept sacrifices.
8. He "dissed" America and Americans.
9. He groveled.

Like The Bald Champion, I have listened to the interview and I didn't hear ANY of the above in there, not even an insinuation or impression of any of it.

[edit on 28-1-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Like The Bald Champion, I have listened to the interview and I didn't hear ANY of the above in there, not even an insinuation or impression of any of it.

I simply asked for specific statements, said by the President, that substantiate the thread author's claims. Apparently, we can assume there are no specific statements, and the thread author is simply engaged in fantastic fabrication for sensational effect.

There is no other conclusion.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I have listened to the interview and I didn't hear ANY of the above in there, not even an insinuation or impression of any of it.

Of course you wouldn't hear it.

Originally posted by mister.old.school
the thread author is simply engaged in fantastic fabrication for sensational effect.

Uh .. no. It's definately what was said. If you refuse to see it .. that's your right. But it was there.

There is no other conclusion.

wrong.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I have listened to the interview and I didn't hear ANY of the above in there, not even an insinuation or impression of any of it.

Of course you wouldn't hear it.

Originally posted by mister.old.school
the thread author is simply engaged in fantastic fabrication for sensational effect.

Uh .. no. It's definately what was said. If you refuse to see it .. that's your right. But it was there.

There is no other conclusion.

wrong.

This entire thread is very similar to JAMIE83 in that it exists only creates friction and discourages debate. However we are all responsible for the friction because we give this attention.

FLYERSFAN is not interested in any cognizant talk about the topic at hand.
FLYERSFAN is interested in reenforcing a need for bringing the party rhetoric to the "streets". FF is typing televised talking points, then regurgitating canned concepts in the guise of deep critical thinking.

This thread could be productive provided this thread topic had any merit. All of us re posting give energy to this constant child like attempt to start a fire with a wet blanket. I am so overwhelmed by the amount faux (fox) outrage that has been farted out in the past year. Considering I have witnessed "THIS" type of thread many, many, many times... I still cannot understand the ready desire to assume televised positions.
Do you fail to remember that " your " position is that of an ENTERTAINMENT entity?
This does not ensure a motivating factor to the outrage you shoulder at the ready!

FF you have failed to give a correlation between the Al-Arabiya and detriment to the USA.

How does this hurt our nation? - I want a CONCRETE reason why this is a valid subject to discuss. I am fairy convinced that you get off on the act of the argument not the logic or merit of THE argument... I am certain you will lose interest with this argument and find a new catalyst during the next EDITION OF FOX BREAKING NEWS...






[edit on 28-1-2009 by The Bald Champion]